JH Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Shepherd plans Toon takeover By JOE BERNSTEIN Under-fire Newcastle United chairman Freddy Shepherd wants to end the 15-year reign of the Hall family with a buy-out of the £90 million club. Shepherd has faced bitter calls for his resignation from Toon fans angry at the club’s slump to the foot of the Premiership. But, far from relinquishing power, Shepherd wants to take over the majority shareholding of Sir John Hall and his son, Douglas, and assume sole control of the club. With the club likely to be valued at £90m, he would have to pay around £37m for Sir John’s 29 per cent share-holding and his son’s 12 per cent. Shepherd already owns 28 per cent and if he does cut a deal with the Halls he will have to make an identical offer to all remaining shareholders, as it would take him over the 30 per cent threshold set by Stock Exchange rules. He then intends to remove Newcastle from their Stock Exchange listing, following the examples of Malcolm Glazer at Manchester United, Roman Abramovich at Chelsea, and Randy Lerner at Aston Villa. But Shepherd is likely to face competition. The mysterious Jersey-based company, The Belgravia Group, have been in talks with the club. Any buy-out would end the 15-year association with the club by Sir John Hall, who finally gained control of Newcastle after a bitter boardroom battle. Sir John set about revitalising the ailing club, bringing in Kevin Keegan as manager. Keegan achieved promotion to the Premiership and famously almost won the title in 1996, before being overhauled by Manchester United. But the news that Shepherd wants to stay at St James’ Park for the long haul will dismay those angry Newcastle fans who demonstrated against him following last weekend’s home defeat against Sheffield United. Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=415898&in_page_id=1779 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Christ almighty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Terrible news. Just terrible. We're doomed if this happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geordiesned Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Fuck. :bigbro: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Lol Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 :obi: :obi: :obi: :obi: :obi: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Well, it's long looked like that was why Fat Fred had strengthened his shareholding to just under the point where he'd legally have to attempt a buy-out. If this is true, then the decision as to the future of the club will rest with the Halls. Will they sell to Fat Fred? Will they sell to someone else? Or will they not sell to anyone, and leave things the way they are? Looks like, if he was going to take the club private, FF would have to borrow really heavily. It would effectively leave us £40 million deeper in debt and under the complete control of someone who has taken us from challenging for the top to floundering at the bottom, and is clearly bereft of fresh ideas as to how to take the club forward. Relegation would of course reduce the share price, thus making it easier for FF (or another buyer) to buy the club out. On the other hand, the threat of it might mean the Halls selling out sooner rather than later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 :obi: :obi: :obi: :obi: :obi: Will remember that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jai Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 I just read this and OH MY GOD! This will be disaster for our club! WHAT KIND OF NONSENSE IS IT THAT THE HALLS MAKE ALL THE IMPORTANT DECISIONS!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stozo Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Were doomed if this happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes? In what sense is it a good move? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Were doomed if this happens. the irony of your post and sig together are great as many do see it that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes? In what sense is it a good move? who says he'll borrow £37mill ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes? In what sense is it a good move? who says he'll borrow £37mill ? That's the minimum he'd need to buy out the other shareholders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes? In what sense is it a good move? p.r. wise and it wouldn't be him borrowing the money, it would be Shepherd Offshore Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes? In what sense is it a good move? who says he'll borrow £37mill ? That's the minimum he'd need to buy out the other shareholders. wouldn't be borrowing if he was leading a consortium Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes? In what sense is it a good move? who says he'll borrow £37mill ? That's the minimum he'd need to buy out the other shareholders. wouldn't be borrowing if he was leading a consortium Did it mention a consortium? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes? In what sense is it a good move? who says he'll borrow £37mill ? That's the minimum he'd need to buy out the other shareholders. wouldn't be borrowing if he was leading a consortium Where's the suggestion that he's leading a consortium? You think he's going to find £37 million worth of investors who think he's the man to get us out of the trouble he himself has got us into in the first place? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes? In what sense is it a good move? p.r. wise and it wouldn't be him borrowing the money, it would be Shepherd Offshore And the difference there is...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes? In what sense is it a good move? p.r. wise and it wouldn't be him borrowing the money, it would be Shepherd Offshore And the difference there is...? they don't confiscate your house/possessions if you default Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Jol, that's not funny in the slightest. People will rememeber and piss themselves when your club finds itself back in the also ran position where it has been for the last 15 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role. Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control. blatantly a back lash at everyone slagging him good move though, quite the chess player it seems He's going to borrow £37 million just because he's piqued at people expecting him to take responsibility for his mistakes? In what sense is it a good move? p.r. wise and it wouldn't be him borrowing the money, it would be Shepherd Offshore And the difference there is...? they don't confiscate your house/possessions if you default Great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonCanuck Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Terrible news. Just terrible. We're doomed if this happens. amen to that.m8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatTheFunk Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Right. I have been against Shepherd for a long long time now, and have been amongst those calling for his severing his ties with NUFC. However, could it be that should he gain full control of the club, he may actually appoint the right people to run it, and just take a back seat for a change? I'm not defending him or attacking him with this post....just trying to be objective and pose a question. I really dont know about this situation anymore. A takeover would be great if it were the right ppl with the right funds. It could also be disasterous if otherwise. What I do know however is that the status quo cannot continue, and the way Shepherd has been running the club, and continues to do so is utterly unacceptable. Can he change? Are there goings on at the club that we don't know about? Could the Halls actually have been the real culprits in our downfall? So many questions, and I have none for answers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 the stress of owning the whole lot might lead to a heart attack bluebigrazz.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now